The decision from the SANDF comes as concerns grow about about fully autonomous weapons systems, also known as killer robots, which include tanks, planes, ships and guns able to act without any human oversight.

SANDF spokesperson Brigadier-General Mafi Mgobhozi explained the problem with such cutting-edge tech was they cannot yet “read” situations on the battlefield.

“Robots will never take the function of a soldier being a soldier,” he said.

Mgobhozi said human soldiers can understand fellow humans’ nuances, and were capable of detecting when people were surrendering, which was not guaranteed with robots.

And another key factor, he said, was that soldiers can act compassionately with people, which ­robots also lack.

Amnesty International AI and human rights researcher Rasha Abdul Rahim, said killer robots were no longer the stuff of science fiction.

“From AI drones to automated guns that can choose their own targets, technological advances in weaponry are far outpacing international law," she said.

“We are sliding towards a future where humans could be erased from decision-making around use of force.”

Getty Images

FEARS: The South African army will not use killer robots in battle

Getty Images

DISTOPEAN: Killer robots are no longer the stuff of science fiction

Rahim said it was not too late to change course and that a ban on fully autonomous weapons could prevent a future arms race.

She added: “So far, the likelihood that autonomous weapons will be used in police operations, with all the risks that entails, has been largely overlooked. But drones capable of shooting electric-shock darts, tear gas and pepper balls already exist.

“The use of fully autonomous weapons in law enforcement without effective and meaningful human control would be incompatible with international human rights law, and could lead to unlawful killings, injuries and other violations of human rights."

Last year, a UN panel of government experts concluded that international humanitarian law still applied to autonomous weapons, and called for more discussion on the matter.

Amnesty International pointed out that countries like France, Russia and the UK were opposed to creating legally binding prohibitions.